Ernest James Castro v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Ernest James Castro v. United States

346 F.2d 684, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5312

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1965

Docket21895_1

StatusPublished

This text of 346 F.2d 684 (Ernest James Castro v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest James Castro v. United States, 346 F.2d 684, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5312 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of contempt for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury, although granted immunity from prosecution in the federal and state courts under Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1406. His petition for habeas corpus, which was treated by the district court as a motion to vacate sentence under Title 28 U.S.C.A. 2255, was denied, and he appeals. His privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment was not violated. The privilege falls in the face of the immunity statute, which is constitutional. Reina v. United States, *685 364 U.S. 507, 81 S.Ct. 260, 5 L.Ed.2d 249 (1960); Piemonte v. United States, 367 U.S. 556, 81 S.Ct. 1720, 6 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1961); cf. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm., 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964). The recent case of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, relied upon by appellant, is inapposite. It was concerned with a state prosecution and did not involve a promise of immunity.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of contempt for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury, although granted immunity from prosecution in the federal and state courts under Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1406. His petition for habeas corpus, which was treated by the district court as a motion to vacate sentence under Title 28 U.S.C.A. 2255, was denied, and he appeals. His privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment was not violated. The privilege falls in the face of the immunity statute, which is constitutional. Reina v. United States, *685 364 U.S. 507, 81 S.Ct. 260, 5 L.Ed.2d 249 (1960); Piemonte v. United States, 367 U.S. 556, 81 S.Ct. 1720, 6 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1961); cf. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm., 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964). The recent case of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, relied upon by appellant, is inapposite. It was concerned with a state prosecution and did not involve a promise of immunity.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 F.2d 684, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-james-castro-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack